Andrews et al v. Comcast Cable Communications Management LLC.

Filing 103

MEMORANDUM. Signed by Judge William M Nickerson on 10/22/2015. (ca2s, Deputy Clerk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

JOEL FAUST et al.
v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC
*

*

*

*

*

*

ISHMAEL ANDREWS
v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC
*

*

*

*

*

*

AUBREY FOSTER
v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC
*

*

*

*

*

*

KYLE CAMP
v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC
*

*

*

*

*

*

*
*
* Civil Action WMN-10-2336
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Civil Action WMN-12-2909
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* Civil Action WMN-15-659
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*

*
*
* Civil Action WMN-15-661
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*

*

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs in these four related cases work or worked as
Customer Account Executives in two of Defendant’s Maryland call

centers.

Plaintiffs brought these actions pursuant to the Fair

Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”) and the Maryland Wage and Hour Law
alleging that Defendant failed to pay overtime for time worked
before their scheduled shifts began.

The parties have now filed

a Joint Motion for Approval of Settlement in each action.

ECF

No. 162 in Civ. No. 10-2336; ECF No. 102 in Civ. No. 12-2909;
ECF No. 15 in Civ. No. 15-659; and ECF No. 15 in Civ. No. 15661.
In reviewing a proposed FLSA settlement, the role of the
district court is to “scrutiniz[e] the settlement for fairness”
and decide whether the proposed settlement is a “fair and
reasonable resolution of a bona fide dispute over FLSA
provisions.”

Lynn’s Food Stores v. United States, 679 F.2d

1350, 1353, 1355 (11th Cir. 1982).

This review includes a

finding as to “(1) whether there are FLSA issues actually in
dispute, (2) the fairness and reasonableness of the settlement
in light of the relevant factors from Rule 23, and (3) the
reasonableness of the attorneys' fees, if included in the
agreement.”

Duprey v. Scotts Co., LLC, 30 F. Supp. 3d 404, 408

(D. Md. 2014).
Having considered and resolved several motions in these
cases, the Court can say with certainty that there are FLSA
issues in dispute.

As to the fairness and reasonableness of the

settlement, courts look to the following factors: (1) the extent
2

of discovery that has taken place; (2) the stage of the
proceedings, including the complexity, expense and likely
duration of the litigation; (3) the absence of fraud or
collusion in the settlement; (4) the experience of counsel who
have represented the plaintiffs; (5) the opinions of counsel;
and (6) the probability of plaintiffs' success on the merits and
the amount of the settlement in relation to the potential
recovery.

Id. at 409 (internal quotations omitted).

Here,

Plaintiffs and Defendant are represented by very experienced and
competent counsel and the cases were ready for trial.

The Court

also finds, based upon its familiarity with Plaintiffs’ claims,
that the amount of recovery for each Plaintiff under the
settlement agreement is reasonable given the expense of trying
each Plaintiff’s case individually and the uncertainty of any
significantly greater award at trial.

There is no indication of

fraud or collusion in the settlement.

Finally, the Court finds

that the attorneys’ fees and costs to be paid to Plaintiffs’
counsel are clearly reasonable in that they represent a small
percentage of the amount expended in the prosecution of these
actions.

3

Accordingly, the Court will approve the settlement as laid
out in the documents accompanying the motions.

A separate order

will issue.
_______________/s/________________
William M. Nickerson
Senior United States District Judge

DATED: October 22, 2015

4